France: Grant durable equipment = tax audit?

[EVEN]

We have just invested in a wood insert
normally only the cost of the stove will be taken into account
mounted by aileurs by a professional. The invoice for labor and for the stove to be the same.

[Christophe]

Precisely read this that I just wrote and which falls straight away: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post83136.html#83136

Does your invoice detail the MO of the equipment?

[EVEN]

yes there is the detail between labor and cost of material
normally there should be no lizard

[I Citro]

I have said it before, I too am against subsidies.

I have seen that whenever subsidy systems evolve, prices do not fall but "absorb" the subsidized amount.
Final result: no savings for the consumer, the suppliers, the State and the BANQUIERS put even more in the pockets!

I have a friend who had a heat pump + solar + boiler installation carried out and who received more subsidies (ADEME, Regional Council ...) than the total price of his site ...
An investment which therefore "brought in" ...
I'm going to ask him a few questions ...

[Christophe]

For the debate whether the subsidies are good or not, it's here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/arnaques-e ... t5520.html

[dirk pitt]

for my case, I admit that it could lead to confusion because the region had had the good idea to indicate on the letter of attribution of the aid that this one should be used in priority on the MO (to promote the work local I imagine)
normally, the tax code provides for the pro rata of the aid according to the ratio: MO / Material and therefore to deduct from the material part the corresponding part of aid, which lowers the tax credit.
as in my case, the totality of the MO was covered by the aid, one would have thought that I had started from the total price MO + material to calculate the eligible amount.

that said, in agreement with citro, in the end, the aids (our taxes) instead of being redistributed to us for citizen purchases, go into the pockets of manufacturers, importers or resellers of equipment which increase their price according to the amounts grants.

[Christophe]

that said, in agreement with citro, in the end, the aids (our taxes) instead of being redistributed to us for citizen purchases, go into the pockets of manufacturers, importers or resellers of equipment which increase their price according to the amounts grants.

For reviews, pros and cons of grants, please https://www.econologie.com/forums/arnaques-e ... t5520.html

[I Citro]

It's not just us talking about it:

To facilitate access to the most efficient equipment from an energy point of view, the State subsidizes their adoption by individuals through the granting of more or less attractive tax credits (1).

Among this equipment is the whole family of heat pumps (2), including the so-called 'air / air' aerothermal systems. By means of a heat exchanger, somewhat like a refrigerator, these models draw heat from the outside air to redistribute it through diffusers in the home.
With an attractive yield compared to conventional electric heating (for the same quantity of energy consumed, the production of heat is at least 3 times higher), these heat pumps have met with real success since 2005 with individuals thanks to a loan from 'tax reaching 40%, and even 50% since January 1, 2006. Technically, they are made up of a heat producing group, placed outside, and one or more hot air diffusers inside .

However, following the installation of air / air heat pumps, people who thought they would benefit from a tax credit were excluded from hot air diffusers from eligible equipment, when professionals had told them that they were included. Worse, some have already benefited from the tax credit and are now subject to an adjustment ...

The whole problem seems to come from the imprecise wording of the text that prevailed to define the allocation of a tax credit following the purchase of a heat pump. It is true that usually very precise, not to say finicky, the finance administration was muddled in the matter, while professionals rushed into the fault. Thus, while some heat pumps are reversible, and as such can produce cool air in summer, the primary function of this equipment has been diverted by seeing individuals equip themselves to air condition a room. , all with the involuntary economic support of the State ... Nevertheless, the latter quickly reacted, specifying that the installation should cover the majority of the rooms in the house and have, in particular, a heating vocation.
If at that time, the people who were equipped benefited from a tax credit of 40% on all the equipment (group producing heat and diffusers), the amount subject to deduction rose to 50% of the equipment in 2006, without the Administration defining precisely the limits of its system. For this it was not until July 11, 2007 (3), date on which the Administration textually restricted the basis for calculating the tax credit by excluding domestic broadcasters, while taking care to specify that this text is logically applied to expenditure incurred from the publication of this instruction.
However, as we know, the State needs money, and it seems that everything is good to find it. Indeed, according to the consumer association CLCV (Consumption, Housing and Living Environment), the tax authorities are now asking several hundred people to reimburse part of the tax credit that has been allocated to them, i.e. amounts that would vary between 2 and 000 €. Questioned on the subject by the association, Jean-Louis Borloo, the Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, noted that no previous provision underlined that indoor units can give rise to the benefit of a tax advantage and that 'as such the text of July 9 was not a modification of the taxation in force. In other words, to put it simply, the Tax Administration would previously have misinterpreted the text it wants to correct today by claiming what should not have been paid to people who were equipped.

The consumers' association obviously makes a different interpretation, considering that the rules of the game cannot change during the year, and that the changes must be announced well in advance. Also, the CLCV seized the ministers concerned so that the taxpayers who carried out a compliant installation before July 11, 2007 benefit from the tax credit which was initially defined and that the adjustment which they received and the penalties are removed.

That said, if the position of the State in this case appears doubtful to say the least, let us stress that the tax credit system constitutes a strong selling point for professionals who use it, or even abuse it, as for the sale of pumps. dedicated to cold production. Likewise, too many professionals (manufacturers and installers alike) tend too easily to increase their margins in proportion to the tax credit offered, thus making their 'fat' on the backs of their customers and the State.
In short, faced with not very precise texts and subject to interpretation by professionals and the tax authorities, it is once again the taxpayers the 'turkeys of the joke'.

Alex belvoit
1- The corresponding expenses, made between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2009, give rise to a tax credit of up to 50% of the amount committed. Anyone can benefit from it, taxable or not, since if the tax credit is greater than the amount to be collected by the State, it is the tax authorities who write a check.
2- To find out more about heat pumps, see the section 'Heat pumps: which one to choose?' that the magazine Echo Nature n ° 18 devotes to them.
3- The circular of July 11, 2007 specifies in particular: “With regard to the methods of calculating the tax credit relating to the expenditure for the acquisition of an air / air heat pump, enters the base of the tax credit l outdoor unit that makes up the heat production equipment. ".

The link to the article on universe-nature.com

[Did67]

for my case, I admit that it could lead to confusion because the region had had the good idea to indicate on the letter of attribution of the aid that this one should be used in priority on the MO (to promote the work local I imagine).

It's even a little more complicated.

It all depends on the decision of the Regional Council and how it calls for its help (deliberation of the Regional Council during the institution of the aid!). In Alsace, it is specifically a help for the workforce - I don't remember the exact title, but that's it. The Region settled the dispute with the Ministry of Finance. She subsidizes labor and the tax authorities subsidize equipment ...

But when the deliberations are more confused, there are two possibilities:

1) we are wrong in all good faith ... generally in the sense that is most favorable to us

2) the tax authorities interpret the texts in the most favorable sense ... for the tax authorities and you in the sense that is favorable to you (it's crazy that legal texts, despite their apparent obscure clarity, remain subject to interpretation. .). Sometimes it is played with a comma!

In both cases, there is a recovery. Let's call it that.

Two remarks:

1) That does not seem to me shocking in itself: would miss more than paying agents to the tax authorities to do nothing; they check, interpret in the sense that is favorable to them and notify you of an adjustment ... I think they are doing their job!

2) In some cases, you can then assert your rights. Normal in a republic. And to see them recognized when the tax authorities were abusive (often, the first letter was only a standard letter treated at the origin by a secretary, in a "mechanical" way). If the tax abuse is obvious, and a complaint does not bear fruit, there are courts!

I would like to point out that I have nothing to do with the tax authorities, that I have been robbed a number of times by administrative services (never the tax authorities), that I have always appealed and I have almost always was right. And that doesn't shock me more than that. But I'm probably not a born grumbler, more a "builder" who still believes somewhere in man ...

And please, not immediately the "bad words", you are worse than some newspapers that I would not quote! "Tax audit", it does, in the media! A tax audit is a tax officer who settles in your home and peels all your invoices. And even that is a right of the Republic!

A letter, with a correction, if you made a mistake or if you misinterpreted texts, that does not shock me. I would point out that we can make mistakes in good faith.

Finally, note that the sums involved are not negligible (the subsidy linked to my pellet boiler is 6 and a few €, or half a dozen years of income tax in my case). That they check it out seems common sense to me.

For the question of manpower, it is now settled (but it is recent); see official tax bulletin, point 30:

http://sites.region-alsace.eu/NR/rdonly ... tation.pdf

I also correct I no longer know who: it is the amount VAT Incl. material which serves as a basis for calculating the subsidy.

[Did67]

:
However, following the installation of air / air heat pumps, people who thought they would benefit from a tax credit were excluded from hot air diffusers from eligible equipment, when professionals had told them that they were included. [/ url]

This clarifies:

- the tax administration makes a restrictive interpretation

- professionals "promise" (but that does not commit them).

Conclusion: on large sums, take the trouble to consult the tax authorities before! Spending half an hour with the quotes at the tax office makes your life easier. Give it a try, you might be surprised how well received you will be. Finally I can only testify that I was it when I had an inextricable situation following a return from Africa in the middle of the year!

We spend hours with professionals who tell you a share of salads with the idea of ​​selling (especially the sharks of the CAP!) And of receiving their sales bonus and we naturally fear the tax officials who would have informed you exactly. , because dealing with these files every day !!!